Uncertainty In Reginald Rose's Twelve Angry Men

Similarly ,In Twelve Angry Men Juror 8 is a smart and moral juror who is willing to stand against all the other jurors for what he thinks is right. He is the main protagonist who believes a boy accused with murdering his father deserves a discussion prior to a guilty verdict. Although all the other jurors initially voted guilty, juror 8 believed that the jurors should not “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”(Juror 8, 12). Throughout the play Juror 8 combats the pressure from the other Jurors to just vote guilty and manages to convince his fellow Jurors one by one that there in fact is “reasonable doubt”(Judge, 6) and convinces them to arrive at a “not guilty”(Juror 3, 72) verdict. Reginald Rose extols Juror 8’s pursuit of justice through his success. Not only did Juror 8 stand by his principles and have the courage to stand against all the other Jurors, he also had the wits to convince his fellow jurors to change their verdict. Through these actions Juror 8 brings justice to the courts of New York city saving the life of a young boy.

Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’ is a play which displays the twelve individual jurors’ characteristics through the deliberation of a first degree murder case. Out of the twelve jurors, the 8th Juror shows an outstanding heroism exists in his individual bravery and truthfulness. At the start, the 8th Juror stands alone with his opposing view of the case to the other eleven jurors. Furthermore, he is depicted as a juror who definitely understands the jury system and defends it from the jurors who do not know it fully. At the end, he eventually successes to persuade the eleven other jurors and achieves a unanimous verdict, showing his

Indeed, Juror 3 and 8 have individual outlooks on the case, but I believe that even between these two diverse people, there are is one strong similarity, and that would have to be persistency. In the whole play, the strongest collisions of disputes were between Juror 3 and 8. Their conflicting perspectives and powerful determinations were what drove the decision of the fate of the accused. In general, these two jurors have strong point of views on how the boy should be treated and why. Even with this similarity, they still use their persistency in diverse

Yet, the 8th Juror allows them to consider the importance of “reasonable doubt” and weakens their circumstantial evidence by saying “sometimes the facts are wrong!”. In response to the 8th Jurors reflection, the 9th Juror changes his vote to “not guilty” as he “wants to hear more”. Rose uses the 8th Juror to voice the need for democratic principles such as rationality and reason in the process of deliberation. Therefore, Rose demonstrates that it is the characteristics of the 8th Juror which gain the audience’s admiration and cause changes in the views of the other jurors. This increases the possibility of the achievement of justice.

Inside a room where life or death decisions are made, twelve men sit with wandering thoughts. The made up minds of some jurors are to send a boy to his death without a second thought, but one other juror may change that. Inside of the play Twelve Angry Men written by Reginald Rose, Juror 8 has the persuasive evidence to change the minds of his fellow Jurors and save a boy from his execution. The other Juror’s seem like they won’t budge with their mind set on the decision of guilty, but after Juror 8 proves his thoughts on the decision of innocent, he may just be able to save a young life.

The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in

Juror Eight seems to be the opposite, feeling sympathetic for the boy because of his poor upbringing. He demands to overview the case evidence given by the old man and the old woman, seeing as there is plausible doubt in the details. He refuses to let Juror Three’s accusations of him and the defendant upset him instead he proceeds to convince the remaining jurors that the boy is not guilty. The race of the characters are never announced because the play is supposed to be interpreted in any way the reader wants to see it. Juror Eight is clearly more intelligent than Juror Three considering Three sticks to his prejudices and does not allow the other jurors to sway his mind. After defending his side throughout the duration of the play, Jurors Four and Three begin to feel pressured. They end up giving in to the other jurors at towards the end of the play as they communicatively persuade a stubborn

The complexity of justice is evident in Reginald Rose’s ‘Twelve Angry Men’, through the employment of Truth throughout the American 1950’s judicial system. Throughout the text, the concept of justice is forged by the racal prejudices, personal bias, emotion, logistics, and reasoning of the Jurors, thus allowing truth to hinder or prevail. Justice is shaped by truth in ‘Twelve Angry Men’, as the Jurors begin to understand the reasonable doubt in the evidence against the defendant, as the truth becomes prevalent through the Juror’s deductive capabilities, thus allowing for injustice to be hindered by the truth, which ultimately leads justice to prevail in the judicial system.

Therefore, other jurors believe that after his acts of anger, he is over the top and their trust in his thoughts begins to waver. Regardless of the majorities vote, juror three’s vote remains unchanged from guilty because of his highly opinionated attitude and prejudiced ways. Juror eight’s bigoted traits and statements eventually cause all the other jurors to leave him for juror eight’s

A 1950’s play, ‘Twelve Angry Men’ written by Reginald Rose is set on a very hot afternoon, entirely in one room and is based on a story of a jury who have to come together to determine the fate of a 16-year-old boy, accused to have murdered his own father. As the men argue endlessly over the evidence, the fundamental ideas of achieving a just verdict becomes clear. Rose creates drama and tension in the jury room, clearly discovering the quality in which integrity is essential to be a member of a jury. This aspect of integrity has been shown through the three characters of Juror 8, Juror 9 and Juror 3. From the very start, Juror 8 announced his perspective of the case and continued to pursue with the same ‘not guilty’ thought throughout the

As a citizen of the United States, Americans are granted a life of freedom. A small price to pay for this irreplaceable gift is that they must attend jury duty. Reginald Rose’s play, 12 Angry Men, tells of a jury assigned to the case of a teenage boy who is being accused of murdering his father, mainly focused on what occurs in the deliberation room. This trial brings out the worst of these jurors, which raises questions for the reader if America’s jury system is the most effective way to give people a fair trial. Lack of interest, inadequacy to listen to others, and various upbringings are just a select few of the reasons it’s failing.

Throughout this play called 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose, there is the theme of attention to details can be important.

Would you enjoy going to jail for a crime you did not commit? The author for 12 angry men, Reginald Rose, had a purpose for writing this play. His purpose for 12 angry men was to show how the jury system can be effective and ineffective with their flaws. “... it’s so not easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first”. ( Rose 5 ) juror number eight is showing effectiveness by not going with what all the others have decided but instead wants to talk about the case. Juror number eight is the good about the jury system and how it's necessary to go over the cases no matter what even if they were talked about it in court. However , Throughout the play during juror number three is not willing to listen to what

Bad days are the worst and when one has to wait in a room for an extended period of time to be placed in another room to decide the verdict of someone’s life; bad results are bound to happen. One unfortunate trait of a bad day is heat from either a loud argument or an excruciating hot day in a crowded city. Rational judgment must be based solely on facts and unbiased discussion for justice to prevail in any matter. The time and setting of Reginald Rose’s “Twelve Angry Men” will be used to show how the conditions in the jury room correlate to the jurors’ attitudes but does not ultimately consequent to an irrational verdict.

Prejudice is like a ghost, it has been haunting the human race since the very beginning. Maddison Hinte investigates the way prejudice affects our society by changing our views of others and the way we treat them. The play ‘12 angry men’ by Reginald Rose discusses that we shouldn 't judge people on their background, on their style, or on their religion, instead we need to focus on what matters most, what’s on the inside. Literature both teaches and encourages us to question the issue of prejudice in today’s society.